Quality of Life of Parents Living with a Child Suffering from Atopic Dermatitis Before and After a 3‐Month Treatment with an Emollient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atopic dermatitis (AD) can be extremely disabling and may cause psychological problems for affected children and their families. Moisturizers and emollients are important in the baseline daily skin care of patients with AD. To assess the effect of a 3-month, twice-daily treatment with an emollient on the quality of life (QoL) of parents with a child with mild to moderate AD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis [SCORAD] ≤ 30, a multicenter open trial was performed by eight dermatologists on 191 volunteers. Evaluation by the dermatologist of the child's clinical condition (SCORAD) and of the efficacy and overall safety of the treatment was associated with a QoL questionnaire completed by one parent of the atopic child. A self-assessment of the global QoL and of the efficacy and overall safety was also performed. During the study, mean SCORAD dropped from 28 to 12 (p < 0.001), with good improvement in skin dryness and pruritus criteria. At the same time, the self-assessment of the global parent QoL scores dropped from 4.4 to 2.1 (p < 0.001) with 60%, 48% and 79% favorable parent opinions regarding wellbeing or improvement of the health condition, quality of sleep, and efficacy of the emollient, respectively. This trial revealed the efficacy of the product in improving parent QoL (85% of parents noted improvement in QoL), and its global safety was considered to be very good or good, with 80% favorable opinions in parents' declarative judgements and dermatologists' assessments. The emollient evaluated improves the course of AD and can improve the QoL of patients and their families.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".